12 found
Order:
  1.  19
    “Let Me Tell You Why!”. When Argumentation in Doctor–Patient Interaction Makes a Difference.Sara Rubinelli & Peter J. Schulz - 2006 - Argumentation 20 (3):353-375.
    This paper throws some light on the nature of argumentation, its use and advantages, within the setting of doctor–patient interaction. It claims that argumentation can be used by doctors to offer patients reasons that work as ontological conditions for enhancing the decision making process, as well as to preserve the institutional nature of their relationship with patients. In support of these claims, selected arguments from real-life interactions are presented in the second part of the paper, and analysed by means of (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   4 citations  
  2.  8
    Quantifying Doctors’ Argumentation in General Practice Consultation Through Content Analysis: Measurement Development and Preliminary Results.Nanon Labrie & Peter J. Schulz - 2015 - Argumentation 29 (1):33-55.
    General practice consultation has often been characterized by pragma-dialecticians as an argumentative activity type. These characterizations are typically derived from theoretical insights and qualitative analyses. Yet, descriptions that are based on quantitative data are thus far lacking. This paper provides a detailed account of the development of an instrument to guide the quantitative analysis of argumentation in doctor–patient consultation. It describes the implementation and preliminary results of a content analysis of seventy videotaped medical consultations of which the extent and type (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  3.  81
    “It is About Our Body, Our Own Body!”: On the Difficulty of Telling Dutch Women Under 50 That Mammography is Not for Them.Peter J. Schulz & Bert Meuffels - 2012 - Journal of Argumentation in Context 1 (1):130-142.
    This article is concerned with the reasons why sometimes good arguments in health communication leaflets fail to convince the targeted audience. As an illustrative example it uses the age-dependent eligibility of women in the Netherlands to receive routine breast cancer screening examinations: according to Dutch regulations women under 50 are ineligible for them. The present qualitative study rests on and complements three experimental studies on the persuasiveness of mammography information leaflets; it uses interviews to elucidate reasons why the arguments in (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  4.  14
    Arguing 'For' the Patient: Informed Consent and Strategic Maneuvering in Doctor–Patient Interaction. [REVIEW]Peter J. Schulz & Sara Rubinelli - 2008 - Argumentation 22 (3):423-432.
    As a way to advance integration between traditional readings of the medical encounter and argumentation theory, this article conceptualizes the doctor–patient interaction as a form of info-suasive dialogue. Firstly, the article explores the relevance of argumentation in the medical encounter in connection with the process of informed consent. Secondly, it discloses the risks inherent to a lack of reconciliation of the dialectical and rhetorical components in the delivery of the doctor’s advice, as especially resulting from the less than ideal conditions (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  5.  12
    Retraction Note To: Comments on ‘Strategic Manoeuvring with the Intention of the Legislator in the Justification of Judicial Decisions’.Peter J. Schulz - 2015 - Argumentation 29 (4):493-493.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  6.  13
    Comments on 'Strategic Manoeuvring with the Intention of the Legislator in the Justification of Judicial Decisions'.Peter J. Schulz - 2008 - Argumentation 22 (3):355-357.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  7.  11
    Erratum To: Arguing ‘for’ the Patient: Informed Consent and Strategic Maneuvering in Doctor–Patient Interaction.Peter J. Schulz & Sara Rubinelli - 2015 - Argumentation 29 (4):481-491.
    As a way to advance integration between traditional readings of the medical encounter and argumentation theory, this article conceptualizes the doctor–patient interaction as a form of info-suasive dialogue. Firstly, the article explores the relevance of argumentation in the medical encounter in connection with the process of informed consent. Secondly, it discloses the risks inherent to a lack of reconciliation of the dialectical and rhetorical components in the delivery of the doctor’s advice, as especially resulting from the less-than-ideal conditions of the (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  8.  11
    Comment on ‹Constrained Maneuvering: Rhetoric as a Rational Enterprise'.Peter J. Schulz - 2006 - Argumentation 20 (4):467-471.
  9.  18
    Toward the Subjectivity of the Human Person.Peter J. Schulz - 2008 - American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly 82 (1):161-176.
    Edith Stein’s work revolves around one central question, namely, the identity of the person. Discussions of this topic are already present in Stein’s dissertation. Iexamine her theory of identity, developed throughout her work and maturing in her magnum opus, Finite and Eternal Being, in three stages, each of which is historically relevant and original. First, Stein’s development of the question is examined phenomenologically, focusing on Stein’s early work. Second, I will show how Stein takes her early phenomenological positions concerning the (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  10.  4
    Interfacing Pragmatics.Louis deSaussure & Peter J. Schulz - 2007 - Pragmatics and Cognitionpragmatics and Cognition 15 (1):3-16.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  11.  7
    “Your Risk is Low, Because …”: Argument-Driven Online Genetic Counselling.Uwe Hartung, Sara Rubinelli & Peter J. Schulz - 2011 - Argument and Computation 1 (3):199-214.
    Advances in genetic research have created the need to inform consumers. Yet, the communication of hereditary risk and of the options for how to deal with it is a difficult task. Due to the abstract nature of genetics, people tend to overestimate or underestimate their risk. This paper addresses the issue of how to communicate risk information on hereditary breast and ovarian cancer through an online application. The core of the paper illustrates the design of OPERA, a risk assessment instrument (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  12.  5
    Assessing the Rationality of Argumentation in Media Discourse and Public Opinion: An Exploratory Study of the Conflict Over a Smoke-Free Law in Ticino.Peter J. Schulz, Uwe Hartung & Maddalena Fiordelli - 2012 - Empedocles: European Journal for the Philosophy of Communication 3 (1):83-110.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography